This invention relates generally to the field of exercsie and more specifically to an apparatus for stretching and strengthening muscles which can be used in a standing or seated position. Low back muscle pain is the single most common medical affliction in the United States. Research has concluded that one of the best preventative measures to help prevent back muscle pain, is improving back muscle and leg muscle flexibility. Also, lack of muscle flexibility contributes to numerous sports injuries annually. It is often very difficult to properly stretch tight muscles, because many people lack the ability to actually stretch by themselves. Accessibility to a quick, effective method of stretching muscles which can be utilized virtually anywhere, even on the job, is virtually non-existant. To date there are over 65 million people annually in the United States who suffer from back muscle pain. The vast majority could experience relief from that pain if they could simply effectively and consistantly stretch their inflexible muscles.
Many products on the market today are geared towards looking good, and looking sexy. There is a great void in the area of functional health, and just feeling better. Many products today are not concerned with genuinely helping people feel better, and enjoy pain relief. They are more concerned with a quick sale regardless of the product results. It is obvious when looking at recent statistics, the problems stemming from lack of muscle flexibility are only getting worse. There does not exist in the market today, a product which truly gives people positive results. If there were, the number of people suffering would be getting smaller, not growing. This is precisely the reason a flexibility device which is effective, easy to use, affordable and safe, will undoubtedly have a huge impact in personal health, and wellness worldwide. Not only is there a tremendous need for such a product at home, businesses lose billions of dollars due to back injuries on the job each year. The need for a small, compact flexibility device which may be utilized while at work is also tremendous.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,076,237 granted to Dussia on Feb. 28, 1977, illustrates what many previous flexibility products consisted of Large, cumbersome products which alienate most of the people who really need to stretch, because they lack the ability and know-how to use such products. It is a fact, that the majority of people who suffer from back muscle pain, simply cannot get onto the ground to use a product.
Another such product which is similar in nature is U.S. Pat. No. 4,517,966 granted to von Othegraven on May 21, 1985. This product again relies upon the user to become seated on the ground to perform the exercises. Also, because this device uses an internal spring mechanism, the user is not held in proper stretching form as they lean forward. As the spring compresses, the users back is allowed to curve. This curving puts tremendous pressure on the lower vertabrae, and can actually worsen back conditions. Not only this, the design of this device makes it heavy and not very portable.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,820,520 granted to Sieber on Oct. 13, 1998 reflects a more modern flexibility product. Unfortunately, it still lacks real functionality. For instance, the whole premise of the device is to have people hang from an extended handle bar while supporting their own weight. Supposedly this stretches the back and leg muscles. In theory, this may work, however in real life it simply doesn't occur. In order for the back AND the leg muscles to be stretched, there needs to be bending at the waist. Without this bending, the leg muscles simply are not stretched effectively. An added dilema is finding a way to stretch both the back and leg muscles in a functional standing or sitting position. This product is also almost totally non-portable, and would never be an option for a quick, on the job-type device.
As stated previously, none of the prior art combines functionality, with effectiveness. Either they are too cumbersome to make them usable on a daily basis, they require too much physical ability, they are cost prohibitive, or they simply don't do what people need them to do . . . work. The prior art has neglected to stick with a very basic design, and as a result none of them have really given people what they so desperately need, a simple device which is truly user friendly.